Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 15–22

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Utilization of steel slag, iron tailings and fly ash as aggregates to

prepare a polymer-modified waterproof mortar with a core–shell
styrene–acrylic copolymer as the modifier
Liu Shao-jie a,b,⇑, Hu Qian-qian a, Zhao Feng-qing a,b, Chu Xiao-meng a
a
College of Chemical & Pharmaceutical Engineering, Hebei University of Science & Technology, Shijiazhuang 050018, PR China
b
Hebei Provincial Engineering and Technology, Research Center of Solid Waste Utilization, Shijiazhuang 050018, PR China

h i g h l i g h t s

 A new polymer-modified waterproof mortar was prepared using steel slag, iron tailings and fly ash as aggregates.
 A core–shell styrene–acrylic copolymer was used as the mortar modifier.
 The mortar gave better mechanical properties and water resistance compared to those with commercial EVA and SAE as modifier.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Using Poly(styrene-co-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (P(St-co-HEMA)) microsphere with a core–shell

Received 27 March 2014 structure as the modifier, a new polymer-modified waterproof mortar was developed with steel slag, iron
Received in revised form 4 September 2014 tailings and fly ash as aggregates. Effects of cement–aggregate ratio, polymer–cement ratio and
Accepted 10 September 2014
defoamer–cement ratio on performances of this mortar were investigated. The factor design was used
to determine the optimal conditions: polymer–cement ratio, 12 wt.%; cement–aggregate ratio, 1:2.5;
defoamer–cement ratio, 0.8 wt.%. The product conformed to Chinese norms. Furthermore, the mortar
Keywords:
with P(St-co-HEMA) as the modifier gave better mechanical properties and water resistance compared
Styrene–acrylic copolymer
Iron tailings
to those with commercial ethylene–vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) and styrene–acrylic copolymer
Steel slag (SAE) as modifiers. Microstructures of these polymer-modified mortars were compared and discussed.
Waterproof mortar Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction SAE is generally prepared by emulsion polymerization with small

The polymer-modified waterproof mortar is developed by add-
ing the polymer composition to common cement mortar. With the
synergistic effect between inorganic and organic materials, some
defects of traditional rigid waterproof materials including low
flexural strength, low bond strength, easy cracking and poor water
resistance can be improved. Therefore, the polymer-modified
waterproof mortar has drawn more and more attention these years
[1–8]. The general modifiers include ethylene–vinyl acetate
copolymer (EVA), polyacrylic ester (PAE), traditional styrene–
acrylic copolymer (SAE), etc. Among them, SAE can increase the
flexural strength and bond strength of mortar [9,10]. It also has
the advantages of little pollution and low cost [11]. However,
⇑ Corresponding author at: College of Chemical & Pharmaceutical Engineering,
Hebei University of Science & Technology, Shijiazhuang 050018, PR China. Tel.: +86
31181668388.
E-mail address: sjliu16@163.com (S.-j. Liu).
molecular surfactant as the emulsifier, which can affect the
mechanical strength and impermeability of mortar. So its applica-
tion is restricted [9–12]. Much attention has been paid to modifica-
tion of SAE in terms of polymerization process and polymer
structure.
Aggregates in the mortar have a significant impact on material
workability, strength, shrinkage and cost. The river sand is gener-
ally used as aggregate to prepare the waterproof mortar. However,
with the rapid development of construction industry, a large
amount of river sand is consumed. The storage of river sand falls
sharply in China, and great exploitation of river sand seriously
affects the ecological safety of river. In addition, a large amount
of steel slag and iron tailings are produced with the rapid develop-
ment of iron and steel industry in China, which have led to a
serious environmental deterioration. Therefore, using these solid
waste materials to replace river sand as mortar aggregate is
beneficial to saving resources and protecting the environment.
Replacement of river sand with iron tailings in the preparation of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.016
0950-0618/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
16 S.-j. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 15–22
building materials has been reported recently [13–18]. The
replacement level is generally controlled at 50 wt.% or less
[14,15]. However, use of steel slag as a construction material has
been a problem as free CaO and/or MgO abundant in steel slag
expand during hydration [19]. Particular care must be taken to pre-
vent potential steel slag expansive behavior in confined applica-
tions. Its expansion risk is minimal when free CaO and MgO
content is limited (less than 5%) and when steel slag is exposed
in outdoor conditions for a period longer than 9 months [20,21].
Some studies have been conducted on the utilization of coarse slag
as coarse aggregate in the concrete [22–32]. Besides, Qasrawi et al.
[33] used fine slag as fine aggregate replacing the sand in the
mixes, partly or totally. However, to the best of our knowledge,
the utilization of steel slag as aggregate in the preparation of poly-
mer-modified waterproof mortar has not been reported.
In this paper, the core–shell poly (styrene-co-hydroxyethyl
methacrylate) copolymer (P(St-co-HEMA)) was synthesized by
emulsifier-free emulsion polymerization. This core–shell structure
could make the functional monomer hydroxyethyl methacrylate
(HEMA) mainly exist on the surface of the polymer particle. The
amount of HEMA was reduced largely. It was beneficial to poly-
mer’s low cost and high functionality. Using steel slag, iron tailings
and fly ash as aggregates, a new polymer-modified waterproof
mortar was developed with this P(St-co-HEMA) microsphere as
modifier. The products will have both environmental and eco-
nomic benefits.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
The monomer styrene (St) and HEMA were readily available on the market. EVA,
SAE, iron tailings, steel slag, fly ash and ordinary Portland cement were provided by
local suppliers. The fineness modulus of the iron tailings was 0.81. Steel slag was
sieved and the used size was less than 0.3 mm. Chemical compositions of steel slag
and iron tailings are listed in Table 1. The strength class of ordinary Portland cement
was 42.5 in accordance with Chinese Standard GB 175-2007 [34] (the equivalent
standard is ASTM C150 [35]). Water reducing agent was naphthalene sulfonate,
and tributyl phosphate was used as the defoamer.
2.2. Preparation of P(St-co-HEMA) microsphere
P(St-co-HEMA) microsphere was prepared by a soap-free emulsion polymeriza-
tion in a 1000 ml four-neck reactor equipped with a reflux condenser, a mechanical
stirrer and a thermometer under nitrogen atmosphere. St and a mixed aqueous
solution of NaOH and NaHCO3 were added to the reactor with a fixed proportion.
When the temperature rose to 75 °C, potassium persulfate was added to initiate
the polymerization and allowed to polymerize for 5 h. Then, HEMA was introduced.
After 3 h copolymerization, the core–shell P(St-co-HEMA) microspheres were
obtained by centrifuging and drying.
2.3. Characterization of polymers
Gas chromatography (GC950) was used to determine the contents of residual
monomers (St and HEMA) by using tetradecane as internal standard. Then the
monomer conversions were obtained and compositions of P(St-co-HEMA) were
estimated. The compositions of EVA and SAE were determined using 1H NMR with
CDCl3 as the solvent. The average hydrodynamic diameter of polymer particle was
measured by the Laser Particle Size Analyzer (Zetasizer Malvern 3000HSA). The
morphology of polymers was characterized using the Transmission Electron Micro-
scope (TEM, Jeol 100CX-II) and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM, S-4800-I).
Table 1
Chemical composition of iron tailings and steel slag.
Chemical composition (wt.%)
CaO MgO SiO2 Fe2O3
Iron tailings 13.03 9.09 55.62 11.03
Steel slag 40.35 7.50 17.30 20.13
2.4. Preparation and testing of the polymer-modified waterproof mortar
The polymer-modified waterproof mortar was developed by mixing P(St-
co-HEMA) microsphere, iron tailings, steel slag, fly ash and additives. The water
reducing agent was 0.5 wt.% (by the mass of cement). This mixture was then mixed
with water to make the test specimens. Water requirement was obtained by con-
trolling the consistency (70 ± 5) mm. The setting time, consistency, mechanical
strength, impermeability, bond strength, flexibility, alkaline resistance, heat resis-
tance, freeze–thaw and shrinkage tests were carried out according to Chinese Stan-
dard JC/T984-2011 [36] (the equivalent standards are ASTM C1438 [37] and C1439
[38]). The morphology of mortar was characterized by SEM. The radioactivity test
was done according to Chinese Standard GB/6566-2010 [39].
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characterization of EVA, SAE and synthesized P(St-co-HEMA)
microsphere
Through the above preparation process, the P(St-co-HEMA)
microsphere with a core–shell structure was obtained. Its mini-
mum film-forming temperature is 5 °C. The TEM image is shown
in Fig. 1. Its core was PS and shell was St-HEMA copolymer. This
core–shell structure could make functional monomer HEMA
mainly exist on the surface of microspheres. The added amount
of HEMA was reduced largely. It was beneficial to polymer’s low
cost and high functionality. SEM images for EVA, SAE and
P(St-co-HEMA) are showed in Fig. 2. It can be observed that, EVA
particles were heterogeneous and very large particles were
present. Compared with EVA, the synthesized P(St-co-HEMA)
microspheres had smaller particle size and better homogeneity.
SAE had similar particle size with P(St-co-HEMA). However, P(St-
co-HEMA) was more homogeneous than SAE. Besides, the adhesion
of SAE particles was serious, and some impurities such as emulsi-
fiers were present on the particle surface. The particle size deter-
mined by DLS (Dynamic Light Scattering) and compositions
estimated by gas chromatograph (for synthesized polymers) or
1
H NMR (for EVA and SAE) are listed in Table 2.
3.2. Preparation and properties of P(St-co-HEMA) modified waterproof
mortar
3.2.1. The aggregate composition
Iron tailings, steel slag and fly ash were used to replace river
sand for preparing the mortar. For determining a reasonable ratio
of them, effects of the aggregate ratio on mechanical properties
of mortars were investigated. As shown in Table 3, iron tailings
was fixed to 40 wt.% and the content of steel slag was ranged from
30 to 60 wt.%. The strength results for these mortars are listed in
Table 3.
As seen in Table 3, both flexural strength and compressive
strength were increased with an increase in the steel slag content
from 30 to 50 wt.%. This indicated that the addition of steel slag in
this content range was beneficial to the mechanical performances
of mortar. However, when river sand was completely replaced by
steel slag, both flexural strength and compressive strength
decreased sharply. The possible reason is that, stability problems
may appear as the steel slag content is high enough, after steam-
cured 7 h in the pressure autoclave. Therefore, 20 wt.% fly ash
was used to replace part of steel slag as shown in Entry 5. This
Al2O3 SO3 MnO f-CaO Loss on ignition
11.42 1.77 – – 2.17
6.29 0.36 3.73 2.58 1.67
 S.-j. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 15–22 17

Table 2
The compositions and particle size data of commercial EVA, SAE and prepared
polymer in this work.

Polymers EVA SAE P(St-co-HEMA)

Compositions (wt.%) VA: 76.8 St: 48.5
E: 23.2 BA: 48.5 St: 90
AA: 3 HEMA: 10
Particle size with standard 1175 455 427
deviation ± 10% (nm)

Table 3
Mechanical properties of prepared mortars with different aggregate ratios.

Entry Compositions (wt.%) 28-day strength of C/F

mortar (MPa) ratio
Iron River Steel Fly Compressive Flexural
tailings sand slag ash
1 40 30 30 0 25.35 5.90 4.30
2 40 20 40 0 27.10 6.95 3.90
Fig. 1. The TEM image of P(St-co-HEMA). 3 40 10 50 0 29.25 7.90 3.70
4 40 0 60 0 24.60 5.95 4.13
5 40 0 40 20 28.10 7.95 3.53
aggregate composition was selected to prepare the polymer-mod- Conditions: cement/aggregate = 1:3; water reducing agent, 0.5 wt.% (based on the
ified waterproof mortar. cement weight); the consistency, (70 ± 5) mm.

3.2.2. Cement–aggregate ratio

Effects of the cement–aggregate ratio on mortar’s performances
were studied for obtaining a suitable cement–aggregate ratio. The
P(St-co-HEMA) content was fixed to 10 wt.% (by the mass of
cement). The added defoamer was 0.2 wt.%. The mechanical
properties and impermeability of mortars with different cement–
aggregate ratios are shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively.
It could be found that from Fig. 3, the compressive strength
decreased with the reduction of cement–aggregate ratio. However,
the decrease was less than 11%. On the contrary, the flexural
strength gave an increased trend. The increase was 8.5% when
the cement–aggregate ratio was decreased from 1:2 to 1:3.5.
Fig. 4 shows that the impermeability pressure of this polymer-
modified waterproof mortar increased firstly with the decrease of
cement–aggregate ratio. However, it decreased rapidly when the
cement–aggregate ratio was below 1:3. In the range of 1:2.5–1:3,
the impermeability pressure was almost a constant value. Both
small and large cement–aggregate ratio reduced the impermeabil-
ity pressure of mortar [40]. When the cement–aggregate ratio was
too large, the late dry shrinkage of mortar was serious due to large
amount of cement, which would produce a lot of tiny cracks on the
slurry surface [40]. The cement was not enough to wrap all the
aggregate particles when the cement–aggregate ratio was too

Fig. 2. SEM images of polymers: (1) EVA, (2) SAE and (3) P(St-co-HEMA).
18 S.-j. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 15–22

Fig. 3. Effects of cement–aggregate ratio on mechanical properties of polymer modified waterproof mortars: (1) compressive strength and (2) flexural strength.

(0.2 wt.%). The content of added P(St-co-HEMA) was 8, 10, 12

and 14 wt.% respectively. The results are shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
Fig. 5 shows that the compressive strength decreased with
increasing polymer–cement ratio, while the flexural strength gave
a reverse trend. The increase in flexural strength was 14.7% when
the polymer content was increased from 8 wt.% to 14 wt.%. The
decrease ratio was less than 6.8% for compressive strength. Com-
pressive strength was below 24 MPa with the polymer content of
12 wt.%, which could not meet the standard of JC/T984-2011
[36]. So the polymer content should not exceed 12 wt.%. After add-
ing polymer, the bond inside the mortar increased and some pores
were filled [43,44]. However, the polymer particle, with a lower
compressive strength compared with the aggregate, occupied a
certain proportion of the mortar. This gave a negative effect on
Fig. 4. Effects of cement–aggregate ratio on the impermeability of polymer
modified waterproof mortars.

small, because the hydration products could not bond all the
aggregates together. Therefore, the gaps among loosely packed
aggregates would form many channels with little water resistance
[40–42]. Based on the obtained results, the suitable cement–
aggregate ratio is between 1:2.5 and 1:3.

3.2.3. Polymer–cement ratio

Polymer could effectively improve some properties of mortar,
such as flexural strength and water resistance. However, consider-
ing the cost, its content should be minimized in the condition of
meeting the performances of mortar. For determining a suitable
polymer content, the effect of polymer–cement ratio on the perfor-
mances of polymer-modified waterproof mortar were studied with Fig. 6. Effects of polymer–cement ratio on the impermeability of polymer modified
waterproof mortars.
a fixed cement–aggregate ratio (1:3) and defoamer amount

Fig. 5. Effects of polymer–cement ratio on mechanical properties of polymer modified waterproof mortars: (1) compressive strength and (2) flexural strength.
 S.-j. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 15–22 19

the compressive strength. From Fig. 6, it could be seen that the Table 4
impermeability pressure increased with the increase of polymer– Factors and levels of the orthogonal experiment.

cement ratio. The increase in the impermeability pressure was Levels Factors
insignificant for polymer–cement ratio changing from 10% to Cement–aggregate Polymer–cement Defoamer–cement
12%. However, for higher percentages, e.g. 14%, the increase was ratio (A) ratio (B) (wt.%) ratio (C) (wt.%)
rather significant. With mutual cross-linking of polymer and 1 1:2 8 0.4
hydration products, a network structure was formed. Some gaps 2 1:2.5 10 0.6
and holes in the mortar were filled, so the impermeability pressure 3 1:3 12 0.8
was increased [43–45].

3.2.4. Defoamer–cement ratio Table 5

The existence of bubbles could greatly reduce the density of Intuitive analysis of the orthogonal experiment.
slurry, and then impact the strength of mortar. In order to reduce Experiment 1 2 3 28-day strength of C/F
its amount, in most cases, the defoamer was added in the prepara- number mortar ratio
tion process of mortar. In this work, tributyl phosphate was used A B C Compressive Flexural
as the defoamer. Effects of its amount on mechanical performances
1 1 1 1 25.0 7.4 3.37
of P(St-co-HEMA) modified mortar were investigated with the fixed 2 1 2 2 24.5 6.9 3.54
cement-aggregate ratio (1:3) and polymer–cement ratio (10 wt.%). 3 1 3 3 20.3 6.2 3.28
The results are shown in Fig. 7. 4 2 1 2 21.8 6.3 3.45
It can be seen that both flexural strength and compressive 5 2 2 3 20.2 6.4 3.16
6 2 3 1 18.4 5.8 3.17
strength of mortar increased with the increase of defoamer
7 3 1 3 21.8 5.9 3.70
amount. It could be seen that both flexural strength and compres- 8 3 2 1 22.9 6.1 3.73
sive strength of mortar increased with the increase of defoamer 9 3 3 2 20.1 6.0 3.38
amount. However, the increase was slight. The increase in flexural Range 0.343 0.230 0.077
strength was less than 3.5%. The ratio was less than 15.3% for com-
pressive strength. When the defoamer content was too small
(0.2 wt.%), only the large bubbles ruptured. Small gaps still existed
in the slurry, so the increase of strength was not remarkable. When
the defoamer content was large enough, the small bubbles also
ruptured and gaps in the slurry reduced considerably. Therefore,
the compactness and strength of mortar were further improved.

3.2.5. Orthogonal experiment

Based on the above results and other reports, the main factors
and scope of this polymer-modified waterproof mortar were deter-
mined. Orthogonal experiment was designed to reveal the effect of
each factor on 28d C/F ratio (compressive strength/flexural
strength ratio) and thus obtain the optimal proportion. Three main
factors, the cement–aggregate ratio (A), polymer–cement ratio (B) Fig. 8. Effect curves of 28d C/F ratio.
and defoamer–cement ratio (C) were selected for proportion opti-
mization. Here, the ‘aggregate’ meaned the mixture of iron tailings The cement–aggregate ratio had a maximum impact on the 28d
(40 wt.%), steel slag (40 wt.%) and fly ash (20 wt.%). The factors and C/F ratio. The optimized result was A2B3C3, i.e. cement–aggregate
levels are shown in Table 4. ratio, 1:2.5; polymer–cement ratio, 12 wt.%; defoamer–cement
For intuitive analysis, the 28d compressive strength, flexural ratio, 0.8 wt.%.
strength and C/F ratio were used. Table 5 showed the intuitive
analysis of the orthogonal experiment. The effect curves of 28d 3.2.6. Validation test
C/F ratio can be seen in Fig. 8. Based on the orthogonal experiment, the optimized factor and
It was found that the effect order was A > B > C, i.e. cement– level combination was A2B3C3. The validation test was performed
aggregate ratio > polymer–cement ratio > defoamer–cement ratio. on the scheme A2B3C3. The results are summarized in Table 6.

Fig. 7. Effects of defoamer–cement ratio on the mechanical properties of polymer modified waterproof mortars: (1) compressive strength and (2) flexural strength.
20 S.-j. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 15–22

Table 6
Results of the validation test.

Specifications JC/T984-2011 This work

Appearance Uniform, no lumps Uniform, no lumps
Setting time Initial setting, P45 min 60 min
Final setting, 612 h 8h
Impermeability pressure (MPa) 7d P1.0 1.4
28d P1.5 2.1
Compressive strength (MPa) 28d P24.0 26.52
Flexural strength (MPa) 28d P8.0 8.93
C/F ratio 63.0 2.97
Flexibility (transverse deformation) (mm) P1.0 1.8
Bond strength (MPa) 7d P1.0 1.2
28d P1.2 1.6
Alkaline resistance (Ca(OH)2 saturated solution,168 h) No cracking and spalling No cracking and spalling
Heat resistance:100 °C, 5 h No cracking and spalling No cracking and spalling
Freeze–thaw cycle ( 15 °C  +20 °C, 25 times) No cracking and spalling No cracking and spalling
Shrinkage 60.15 0.05

From Table 6, it could be found that all the specifications,
including 28d C/F ratio and water resistance, met the requirements
of JC/T984-2011 [36]. The optimal formula was cement–aggregate
ratio, 1:2.5; polymer–cement ratio, 12 wt.%; defoamer–cement
ratio, 0.8 wt.%; water reducing agent, 0.5 wt.%. The radioactivity
test of mortar was done according to GB/6566-2010 [39], and the
test result achieved A-type (A-type building materials: The specific
activity of natural radioactive nuclides Radium-226, Thorium-232,
Potassium-40 in building materials meets the requirements of
internal exposure index 61 and external exposure index 61.3.
The production and application ranges of A-type building materials
are not restricted).
3.3. Comparison of the properties for mortars modified by P(St-co-
HEMA) and commercial polymers
The properties of mortars modified by P(St-co-HEMA) were
compared with those modified by commercial EVA and SAE. The
optimal values for EVA and SAE were also been determined.
For SAE, the optimal values are the same as those used for

Table 7
Main performances of polymer-modified waterproof mortars (28-day).

Entry Specifications JC/T984-2011 Ordinary mortar SAE modified mortar EVA modified mortar P(St-co-HEMA) modified mortar
1 Impermeability pressure/MPa P1.5 1.1 1.4 1.9 2.1
2 Compressive strength /MPa P24.0 28.10 23.02 24.71 26.52
3 Flexural strength /MPa P8.0 7.95 7.12 8.43 8.93
4 C/F ratio 63.0 3.53 3.24 2.93 2.97

Fig. 9. SEM images of mortars: (1) ordinary mortar, (2) EVA modified mortar, (3) P(St-co-HEMA) modified mortar and (4) P(St-co-HEMA) modified mortar etched with HCl
acid.
 S.-j. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 15–22
P(St-co-HEMA). For EVA, the optimal vales were: polymer–cement
ratio, 10 wt.%; cement–aggregate ratio, 1:2.5; defoamer–cement
ratio, 0.8 wt.%. The main performances of polymer-modified water-
proof mortars prepared with optimal compositions are summa-
rized in Table 7.
It was seen that the impermeability pressure of SAE modified
mortar did not meet the requirements of Chinese Standard [36].
The impermeability pressure of P(St-co-HEMA) modified mortar
was up to 2.1 MPa, meeting the standard requirements, being obvi-
ously better than the EVA group. For the flexural strength, similar
results were found.
3.4. Microstructure analysis for mortars
The microstructure of mortars was analyzed by SEM. The
obtained SEM images are showed in Fig. 9. It could be clearly seen
from Fig. 9-2 and 9-3 that the pores of polymer-modified mortars
were filled up by many membrane-like substances (hydrates and
polymers) which bonded the aggregate together. Some of the
membrane-like substances could cross the pores like a bridge.
Therefore, the gaps became smaller through these bridging and fill-
ing. However, the internal morphology of ordinary mortar was
loose (Fig. 9-1), and full of needle materials with large aperture,
which led to low water resistance. The mortar with P(St-co-HEMA)
as the modifier seemed to be more dense and firm than the one
with EVA as the modifier. The reason may be that, compared to
EVA, P(St-co-HEMA) particles with smaller size can permeate more
effectively to the capillary pores and micro-cracks distributed on
the surface of the hydrates and aggregate [45]. Besides, the P(St-
co-HEMA) particles may show better packing property in the
cement mortar. This is good for the mortar’s performance improve-
ment. Therefore, the polymer probably had three effects [46]: (1) it
partially obstructed the fine pore network inside of hydrates; (2) it
filled the large pores; and (3) it formed membranes that encapsu-
lated the cement grains and aggregate. All above effects combined
to improve the mortar’s strength, especially water resistance.
Besides, the high strength of P(St-co-HEMA) modified mortar
may be due to its excellent adhesion property from the incorpora-
tion of HEMA.
4. Conclusions
Using iron tailings, steel slag and fly ash as aggregates to replace
river sand, a new polymer-modified waterproof mortar was devel-
oped with a core–shell P(St-co-HEMA) as the modifier. The optimal
formula is cement–aggregate ratio, 1:2.5; polymer–cement ratio,
12 wt.%; defoamer–cement ratio, 0.8 wt.%; water reducing agent,
0.5 wt.%. The polymer-modified waterproof mortar’s performances
including mechanical strength and impermeability pressure are
improved, compared to the ordinary cement mortar. The mortar
conforms to Chinese Standard JC/T984-2011 and GB/6566-2010.
Compared with commercial EVA and SAE, the newly developed
mortar has improved properties. Besides, using iron tailings, steel
slag and fly ash to replace river sand can reduce product cost and
save resources.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by Natural Science Foundation of
China (No. 21304030), Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Prov-
ince (No. B2012208017) and Outstanding Youth Fund in Hebei
Province Department of Education (No. YQ2013001). Here we
expressed the heartfelt thanks for the support.
21
References
[1] Schulze J, Killermann O. Long-term performance of redispersible powders in
mortars. Cem Concr Res 2001;31:357–62.
[2] Sakai E, Sugita J. Composite mechanism of polymer modified cement. Cem
Concr Res 1995;25:127–35.
[3] Aggarwal LK, Thapliyal PC, Karade SR. Properties of polymer-modified mortars
using epoxy and acrylic emulsions. Constr Build Mater 2007;21:379–83.
[4] James AM, Said S. Effect of the addition of an acrylic polymer on the
mechanical properties of mortar. ACI Mater J 1990;87:54–61.
[5] Schulze J. Influence of water–cement ratio and cement content on the
properties of polymer-modified mortars. Cem Concr Res 1999;29:909–15.
[6] Banfill PFG, Bellagraa L, Benaggoun L. Properties of polymer modified mortars
made with blended cements. Adv Cem Res 1993;19:103–9.
[7] Afridi MUK, Chaudhardy ZU, Ohama Y, Demura K, Iqbal MZ. Strength and
elastic properties of powdered and aqueous polymer modified mortars. Cem
Concr Res 1994;24:1199–213.
[8] Li YH. Application of emulsion powder in cementitious waterproof slurry.
Build Energy Efficiency 2008;36:54–7.
[9] Zhong SY, Tan MH. Chloride diffusivity of styrene–acrylate latex modified
mortars. J Build Mater 2012;5:394–8.
[10] Huang YW, Liu WQ. Study on functional styrene–acrylate emulsion modified
cement based materials. Chem Adhes 2006;28:320–3.
[11] Peng CY, Wen ZY. Preparation and properties of styrene–acrylate latex
modified mortars. Chem Build Mater 2002;7:21–3.
[12] Ohama Y. Polymer-based admixture. Cem Concr Compos 1998;20:189–212.
[13] Zhao FQ, Li H, Liu SJ, Chen JB. Preparation and properties of an environment
friendly polymer-modified waterproof mortar. Constr Build Mater
2011;25:2635–8.
[14] Mun KJ, Choi NW, So SY, Soh YS. Influence of fine tailings on polyester mortar
properties. Constr Build Mater 2007;21:1335–41.
[15] Choi YW, Kim YJ, Choi O, Lee KM, Lachemi M. Utilization of tailings from
tungsten mine waste as a substitution material for cement. Constr Build Mater
2009;23:2481–6.
[16] Zhao SJ, Fan JJ, Sun W. Utilization of iron ore tailings as fine aggregate in ultra-
high performance concrete. Constr Build Mater 2014;50:540–8.
[17] Li C, Sun HH, Yi ZL, Li LT. Innovative methodology for comprehensive
utilization of iron ore tailings Part 2: The residues after iron recovery from
iron ore tailings to prepare cementitious material. J Hazard Mater
2010;174:78–83.
[18] Huang XY, Ranade R, Ni W, Victor CL. Development of green engineered
cementitious composites using iron ore tailings as aggregates. Constr Build
Mater 2013;44:757–64.
[19] Hwang EH, Ko YS, Kim JM, Hwang TS. Mechanical/physical characteristics of
polymer mortar recycled from rapid-chilled steel slag. J Ind Eng Chem
2009;15:628–34.
[20] Papayianni I, Anastasiou E. Production of high-strength concrete using high
volume of industrial by-products. Constr Build Mater 2010;24:1412–7.
[21] Anastasiou E, Georgiadis Filikas K, Stefanidou M. Utilization of fine recycled
aggregates in concrete with fly ash and steel slag. Constr Build Mater
2014;50:154–61.
[22] Beshr H, Almusallam AA, Maslehuddin M. Effect of coarse aggregate quality on
the mechanical properties of high strength concrete. Constr Build Mater
2003;17:97–103.
[23] Maslehuddin M, Sharif AM, Shameem M, Ibrahim M, Barry MS. Comparison of
properties of steel slag and crushed limestone aggregate concretes. Constr
Build Mater 2003;17:105–12.
[24] Wu SP, Xue YJ, Ye QS, Chen YC. Utilization of steel slag as aggregates for stone
mastic asphalt (SMA) mixtures. Build Environ 2007;42:2580–5.
[25] Asi IM, Qasrawi HY, Shalabi FI. Use of steel slag aggregate in asphalt concrete
mixes. Can J Civ Eng 2007;34:902–11.
[26] Abu-Eishah SI, El-Dieb AS, Bedir MS. Performance of concrete mixtures made
with electric arc furnace (EAF) steel slag aggregate produced in the Arabian
Gulf region. Constr Build Mater 2012;34:249–56.
[27] Qasrawi H. The use of steel slag aggregate to enhance the mechanical
properties of recycled aggregate concrete and retain the environment. Constr
Build Mater 2014;54:298–304.
[28] Manso JM, Polanco JA, Losañez M, González JJ. Durability of concrete made
with EAF slag as aggregate. Cem Concr Compos 2006;28:528–34.
[29] Pellegrino C, Gaddo V. Mechanical and durability characteristics of concrete
containing EAF slag as aggregate. Cem Concr Compos 2009;31:663–71.
[30] Pellegrino C, Cavagnis P, Faleschini F, Brunelli K. Properties of concretes with
black/oxidizing electric arc furnace slag aggregate. Cem Concr Compos
2013;37:232–40.
[31] Liu CL, Zha KP, Chen DP. Possibility of concrete prepared with steel slag as fine
and coarse aggregates: a preliminary study. Proc Eng 2011;24:412–6.
[32] Wang Q, Yan PY, Mi GD. Effect of blended steel slag–GBFS mineral admixture
on hydration and strength of cement. Constr Build Mater 2012;35:8–14.
[33] Qasrawi H, Shalabi F, Asi I. Use of low CaO unprocessed steel slag in concrete as
fine aggregate. Constr Build Mater 2009;23:1118–25.
[34] Common Portaland cement. GB 175-2007 [Chinese Standard].
[35] Standard specification for Portland cement. ASTM C150 [ASTM standard].
[36] Polymer modified cement mortars for waterproof. JC/T984-2011 [Chinese
Standard].
22 S.-j. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 15–22
[37] Standard specification for latex and powder polymer modifiers for hydraulic
cement concrete and mortar. ASTM C1438 [ASTM standard].
[38] Standard test methods for polymer-modified mortar and concrete. ASTM
C1439 [ASTM standard].
[39] Limits of radionuclides in building materials. GB/6566-2010 [Chinese
Standard].
[40] Li H. Study on polymer-modified waterproof mortar with low environment
[dissertation]. Hebei University of Science and Technology; 2012.
[41] Zhang C. Study on properties and application of polymer waterproofing mortar
[dissertation]. Nanjing University of Technology; 2012.
[42] Leng Z. Preparation and durability research of polymer modified waterproof
mortar [dissertation]. Wuhan University of Technology; 2013.
[43] Jenni A, Holzer L, Zurbriggen R, Herwegh M. Influence of polymers on
microstructure and adhesive strength of cementitious tile adhesive mortars.
Cem Concr Res 2005;35:35–50.
[44] Sun ZP, Yang J, Pang M, Zhao YJ, Kang M. Influence of redispersible emulsion
powder on properties of steel slag mortar. J Build Mater 2013;16:55–9.
[45] Wang DS. Preparation and properties of functional polymer micro-spheres
[dissertation]. Dalian Polytechnic University; 2007.
[46] Ollitrault-Fichet R, Gauthier C, Clamen G, Bochl P. Microstructural aspects in a
polymer-modified cement. Cem Concr Res 1998;28:1687–93.